The only thing that Bush's "war on terror" has spread faster than disaster and misery has been opposition to its means and ends.

Six years into this self-righteously promoted crusade, Washington is more isolated internationally than ever.

Talking so openly about staying in Iraq forever is in part an attempt to hem in the next U.S. President.

It's a pre-emptive strike in the "Who Lost Iraq?" blamefest already raging among the powers that be.

But it is also tacit admission of defeat: Washington no longer can even pretend it is on the verge of "standing down" as a stable, pro-Western Iraqi government "stands up"

The Weakest Link

Within the U.S., the Commander Guy's approval rating has fallen below 30%.

Initiative has passed from those who promote naked militarism and its deadly corollaries to political actors who (in various ways and to various degrees) demand a change of direction.

But the outcome is still in doubt. The core "war on terror" policies of military force, torture, unaccountable executive power, and might-makes-right empire-building remain in place.

The rapidity with which "war on terror" crises shift from Iraq to Afghanistan, from Israel/Palestine to Iran, and from Guantánamo to the U.S.-Mexico border, poses big challenges to the antiwar movement.

Protest actions must be mounted on a host of fronts. Large-scale public education campaigns that explain the connections among these areas and more are especially vital.

Yet the "war on terror" cannot be stopped on all fronts at once. Public opinion is highly uneven regarding its different aspects, as are divisions within the elite.

Some specific policies are more vulnerable to change than others. The real-life political dynamic is that a breakthrough almost certainly has to come first at the Bush crusade's weakest link.

The link where Washington is most blatantly failing, most internationally isolated, and where the widest sectors of the U.S. populace are most discontent.
As pressure mounts on that weak link -- and especially if a breakthrough victory can be achieved -- the war-makers are weakened and there are new openings for gains on other fronts as well.
That weakest link is the occupation of Iraq. And a range of initiatives are in motion for the fall to make it even weaker -- or snap it altogether.

Does capitalism equal human nature? A clever propaganda equation, a
ruse, an effective ideological weapon to defend capitalism in the 'Free
World'. While it may not have been invented in the U.S, it's here where
it has received its warmest embrace.

Does capitalism equal human nature?
It's evident that when sufficient numbers of people are made to believe
that an eternal, immutable and invincible "human nature" will time and
again scuttle the best-laid plans, and the costliest sacrifices for
change, then most threats to the status quo will be defanged at the
outset.

Is capitalism natural? Most reasonable people would be forgiven for thinking that indeed it does.

That
what goes coyly by the reassuring moniker of "free enterprise" is in
fact the economic equivalent of human nature, the only system of social
organization aligning itself effortlessly with the temperamental
inclinations of most people.

Fact is, far from being true,
this is simply a clever propaganda equation, a ruse, and one of the
oldest and most effective ideological weapons to defend capitalism in
the so-called Free World.

And while it may not have been invented in the U.S., it's here where it has received its warmest embrace.

It pays off handsomely in a number of important ways.

First, if capitalism is congruent with "human nature," then the
capitalist system must be the most "natural" and "logical" form of
social organization, as people will have a built-in tendency to observe
its basic rules.

Second, "human nature," as defined in
corporate terms (which the commercial press of course follows) is
characterized by two significant traits: immutability and unalterable
egoism.

Why should anyone bother to undertake such an immensely difficult task
if in the end the stubborn intractability of human nature will render
all schemes for change and improvement of social conditions worthless
and utopian?
Second, the supposedly terminally individualistic nature of people
provides a convenient justification for the harsh, dog-eat-dog
conditions that prevail under the so-called free-enterprise system.

In this vision, derived from classical economics, all human motivation
is supposed to flow from the desire for pecuniary gain and
self-aggrandisement.

Individuals are perceived
one-dimensional, as simple atoms of unrelenting hedonism, constantly
pursuing the calculus of profit and loss, pain and pleasure, as they
irrepressibly "maximize" their options to fulfill the dictates of
hopelessly greedy natures.

This is the fabled "homo
economicus" of free market literature; the heroic "rugged
individualist" so dear to conservatives, and supposedly the creature on
which all human progress and wealth depend.

So now we begin to see why the media - especially the wilier corporate apologists - embrace this tack with so much fervor.

Ideological
blinders and indoctrination cut very deep in the "Western world." Too
many decades of unopposed repetition have given this lie, like all lies
buttressing an exploitative system, an air of veracity and common sense
it doesn't deserve.

Western propaganda talks about about fighting for "democracy" in Iraq
while they whip up hysteria over the alleged threat posed by "Muslim
extremists" to "our values". The racism is clear. But it is part of a
much deeper tradition in Western culture.

Colonial conquest
Orientalism as an academic discipline only emerged with colonial
occupations of the Middle East and India by Western powers. This began
with France’s conquest of Egypt at the end of the 18th century.

Academic
study was an expression of that colonial domination and was rooted in a
long-standing Western tradition of opposing Christendom to the Islamic
world. This opposition justified the colonial project in advance.

The
Orient is seen as a negative mirror image of the West – an imaginary
representation of Western desires and fears projected onto others.

So
the Orient is always “female”, sexualised, and exotic – while we are
“male”, rational and normal. They are dangerous, violent, and childlike
– we are their natural masters, protectors and leaders.

And
crucially we have knowledge of the Orient, which is essentially
unchanging and static, because we have history, science and progress.

Orientalism
works to create not just a false stereotype of the Orient, but also an
imagined representation of the West to ourselves.

To see how
this works, think of how resistance fighters in Iraq are portrayed as
brutal unthinking monsters driven by primeval and irrational religious
motives.

“Our boys”, on the other hand, act in a legal,
thoughtful, measured way, driven by the highest motives of courage,
honour and universal human ideals.

Little wonder then that
600,000 dead Iraqis need never be named or even counted. Iraqis can
even be portrayed as “ungrateful” for not appreciating Western efforts
to “help” them.

This kind of interpretation has permeated out
of the academy into all areas of Western culture, from novels and films
to more overtly political culture.

His work seemed to predict a superficial society obsessed with fame. Warhol mattered mainly as a pop culture 'brand.'
“Andy” is easily Warhol’s single greatest creation - still present at every new craze, from Paris Hilton to reality TV.

It's
apt to rebrand him as "American Idol."
He was a mixture of voyeur and exhibitionist. A bizarre combination
that resulted in a 'perfect storm of narcissism. As befits him, here
are three versions of his reality.

Warhol, like most human mirrors, regarded the world as just a performance.

The
New York-based pioneer said: "Don't pay attention to what they write
about you. Just measure it in inches."
His work seemed to predict a superficial society obsessed with fame. So
is the inventor of pop culture a genius or a fraud?
Andy is ghost of celebrity past, present, and yet to come. He was
obsessed with death. Perhaps that was the pure motivation behind his
art. He used it as an escape from mortality. Through his art he would
be immortal.

Isn't
that the key which unlocksthe secret in all of us? What will we leave
behind when we die? A mark, a trace that proves we were here?
Pop Art Trash Andy Warhol's work is typical of the American trash that masqueraded as pop art.

Warhol's best art was himself. He was far more interesting than his work.

He
epitomises what's wrong with pop art, which is one of the worst periods
of modern art. His work is also grossly inflated and over-valued.
Frankly a lot of it is crap - but expensive crap!
You can buy a Rembrandt cheaper than a Warhol. Some people seem to
value pictures of Marilyn Monroe or a can of soup more than great
painting.

Maybe the place Warhol now holds in popular art says more about our society than the true worth of his work.

I do wonder and worry about the example it is setting to young people.

Are
they going to draw inspiration from trashy American culture?
My opinion of Warhol the artist is completely different to Warhol the
person. I've heard he was an interesting and nice man and in many ways
had far more depth than his work.

He Invented Celebrity Culture

If you're the kind of person who would get on a train, find a copy of
Hello! and flick through to look at pictures of celebrities, you'll
love Warhol's work.

His art simply reflects the things that fascinate us. We have a
room dedicated to his portraits of celebrities who fought to get into
the Studio 54 nightclub in New York where he often went.

People like Liza Minnelli, Debbie Harry, Grace Jones and Dolly Parton all knew it was the place to be seen.

He
wasn't just interested in art. His own magazine Interview covered
anything 'of the moment' and pioneered the informal celebrity
interview, noting down everything they did, wore or said. He was the
inventor of today's celebrity culture.

His Life Became an Exhibition of Conceptual Art

I'm into the idea of the painter being the personality. I love the
whole concept of the Warhol wigs, clothes and his incredible social
life which almost became an art form in itself.

My favourite image is the cover of the first Velvet Underground
album with the yellow banana on the front. It really meant something in
my life.

As a teenager, I picked up the sleeve and was aware I
was holding something artistic in my hand. It was a definite attempt to
bring art to the mainstream.

Warhol had a massive impact on pop culture. He made it clear art was about the idea, not necessarily the execution.

I'm
very much behind that concept. If you come up with a great idea why on
earth do it yourself? Have somebody who works in your studio do it for
you...so you can go to a cafe.